dang, some of you get so catty. how is this even helpful to the convo??

speaking as an RN i have been asked to give vaxes to in-pt and when i have gone in to talk to them and they have declined i was told to NOT talk to them or give them info, that ALL patients NEED to have those vaccines and that i was not doing my job by letting them refuse. that right there tells me something is up. why force them on people/ why with hold information? why not allow people to make a choice for themselves.

i am also a mama who rarely if ever takes her kids to the doctor. why would i? i can see they are growing and eating and gaining weight. to me it is a way for doctors to get extra money and for them to push vaccinations on people. it isn't like they draw labs on kids for well-child check ups. what exactly are they telling you/me in the visit? how tall they are, how much they weigh, maybe take their BP, with the littlest ones they are forever in their diapers messing with their penis, telling you to give formula because he/she isn't big enough, or they are too big.

mama to 6 amazing children married to my main man for 21 years and finally home FULL time

speaking as an RN i have been asked to give vaxes to in-pt and when i have gone in to talk to them and they have declined i was told to NOT talk to them or give them info, that ALL patients NEED to have those vaccines and that i was not doing my job by letting them refuse. that right there tells me something is up. why force them on people/ why with hold information? why not allow people to make a choice for themselves.

and as an RN you must be use to other situations where it is perfectly acceptable as a patient to decline a treatment or a med but not with vac! and with meds, don't you generally tell them what can happen (side effects, etc) and also the meds are checked (at least they should be) that there won't be a reaction?..........but vaccines don't count as meds.............oh yea, that is quite telling isn't it?

pro-transparency advocate

&

PROUD member of the .3% club!

Want to join? Just ask me!

"You know, in my day we used to sit on our ass smoking Parliaments for nine months.

I am not going to argue over this. You can call Wakefield what you want, and I will call Offitt what I want.

I think I was clear earlier, but to repeat:

It isn't that making money in general is bad

Offittt's money is tied to his conflict of interest which is bad, therefore "Dr. Proffitt" stands.

Let's say that on one side, a doctor, we will call him 'Dr Proffit', has made a bundle of money by inventing a vaccine. If Dr Proffit recommends immunization, it is natural to suspect there is a conflict of interest. On the other side, a doctor, we will call him 'Dr Quackfield' has implied that there is a link between MMR and autism. An investigation into Dr Quackfield's findings found severe faults in his methods including conflict of interest in the way the children in his study were chosen ... and treated, among many other issues.

Question implicated in this thread is, which one should be more trusted on what they say? My answer to this question: Why should we give too much weight on what Dr Proffit or Dr Quackfield say? They are not the only 'experts' out there. What about what the other experts have to say? More specifically what do most of them say? And not just medical doctors, epidemiologists, biologists and other scientists.

Very little scientific evidence has been found that takes away from the benefits of vaccination. When evidence has been found, either:

- changes are made when consensus is reached (sometimes before consensus is reached as in the case of the elimination of thimerosal) or,

- the evidence is weak or can't be reproduced (such as the case of the swine flu vaccine potentially causing Guillain Barre syndrome. Even though not generally reproducible this disease is reported as a potential serious adverse event.)

Reproducibility is one of the main principles of the scientific method. If researchers can't reproduce (independently) some results, then those results are put into question. More often than not, those results in question will simply be wrong or not general enough.

The case of child immunization is no exception. The consensus of the research findings is key.

Question implicated in this thread is, which one should be more trusted on what they say? My answer to this question: Why should we give too much weight on what Dr Proffit or Dr Quackfield say? They are not the only 'experts' out there. What about what the other experts have to say? More specifically what do most of them say? And not just medical doctors, epidemiologists, biologists and other scientists.

I don't entirely disagree with this. I do think people should consult numerous sources - Wakefield and Offitt are not the only "experts" out there.

That being said, the doctrine of consensus has 2 major flaws as I see it:

1. Consensus =/= correct. There are numerous examples throughout history where medical consensus has proved to be wrong.

2. What is their consensus on? That vaccines are safe? There is not consensus on that. Is their consensus among most mainstream scientists ( et al) that the good of vaccines outweigh the bad? Perhaps. But again - what does this mean? Are they speaking globally? Are they speaking of public health or of individual health (of which they can't -as they do not know individual circumstances)? The consensus, for example, might be that rota is a great vaccine - and maybe it is on the global scale. Maybe it is even an ok idea in the USA, where early daycare is the norm due to a lousy mat. leave policy and mediocre breastfeeding rates. Does it mean my individual children, who were not in daycare as infants, and were exclusively breastfed, would benefit from rota vaccine? No - it doesn't. According to the CDC almost all kids get rota. I assume mine did. It was so mild I did not even notice it. So yeah, the consensus might be that rota is a worthwhile vaccine - that does not mean it is worthwhile for all kids.

I would also point out that if the foundation the consensus is built on is sufficiently flawed (and I find the process by which vaccines are researched and passed fairly flawed) then "consensus" will be less meaningful. The bar is going to be set pretty high for use. To bring up a non-vaccine example: Maple leaf products in Canada have been recalled several times. Do I seek out Maple Leaf products? No , I do not. I actively avoid, actually. I would consume them if I were starving, but otherwise I am not going to take my chances. I treat most pharmaceutical products the same way. Pharmaceutical products always have known risk factors, pharmaceutical companies are hardly the poster children for ethical behavior, I will pass unless I need them

There is a battle of two wolves inside us. One is good and the other is evil. The wolf that wins is the one you feed.

Book and herb loving mama to 1 preteen and 2 teens (when did that happen?). We travel, go to school, homeschool, live rurally, eat our veggies, spend too much time...

I don't entirely disagree with this. I do think people should consult numerous sources - Wakefield and Offitt are not the only "experts" out there.

That being said, the doctrine of consensus has 2 major flaws as I see it:

1. Consensus =/= correct. There are numerous examples throughout history where medical consensus has proved to be wrong.

2. What is their consensus on? That vaccines are safe? There is not consensus on that. Is their consensus among most mainstream scientists ( et al) that the good of vaccines outweigh the bad? Perhaps. But again - what does this mean? Are they speaking globally? Are they speaking of public health or of individual health (of which they can't -as they do not know individual circumstances)? The consensus, for example, might be that rota is a great vaccine - and maybe it is on the global scale. Maybe it is even an ok idea in the USA, where early daycare is the norm due to a lousy mat. leave policy and mediocre breastfeeding rates. Does it mean my individual children, who were not in daycare as infants, and were exclusively breastfed, would benefit from rota? No - it doesn't. According to the CDC almost all kids get rota. I assume mine did. It was so mild I did not even notice it. So yeah, the consensus might be that rota is a worthwhile vaccine - that does not mean it is worthwhile for all kids.

I would also point out that if the foundation the consensus is built on is sufficiently flawed (and I find the process by which vaccines are researched and passed fairly flawed) then "consensus" will be less meaningful. The bar is going to be set pretty high for use. To bring up a non-vaccine example: Maple leaf products in Canada have been recalled several times. Do I seek out Maple Leaf products? No , I do not. I actively avoid, actually. I would consume them if I were starving, but otherwise I am not going to take my chances. I treat most pharmaceutical products the same way. Pharmaceutical products always have known risk factors, pharmaceutical companies are hardly the poster children for ethical behavior, I will pass unless I need them

Yes 'the consensus' in the past has been wrong and not just in medicine. But trusting the consensus is not to say (i) it shouldn't be questioned or that (ii) it is always right. It simply acknowledges that they are the experts and that at least most of the time, they are correct. Valid questions have been made about vaccines by parents:

- Do vaccine(s) cause autism?

- Are children getting too many vaccines? ....

Most of the evidence leads to conclude that neither of these questions can be answered affirmatively. It's not like they are not looking into it.

I disagree about 'the process by which vaccines are research and passed fairly flawed'. Though the system might not be perfect, it is a rather strict ordeal, with clinical trials and all sorts of requirements. The process can take as long as 20 years and the majority of vaccines get rejected!!! http://www.vaccineethics.org/issue_briefs/risk_safety.php Could there be companies trying to find shortcuts? Sure!!! (and the money hungry companies are personally my biggest concern when it comes to vaccines) But most of the time they don't succeed. There's simply too many obstacles and procedures that need to be followed. The difficulty of approving is intentional, we are talking about immunizing kids here and the authorities (yes, although they are not perfect) do take this very seriously. Nobody has ever said that the process is perfect, even the science is not perfect. However, the level of scrutiny of the work on vaccines really has no parallel in medicine. Hopefully, the strict scrutiny for vaccines stays that way, or if anything, becomes more efficient!!

Did you ever read my post about Rumsfeld, Aspartame, and the FDA? How he hand-picked the head of the FDA, who immediately approved aspartame--although the researchers at the FDA had failed its approval for years before? Or how Monsanto's Michael Taylor is the current Deputy Commissioner of the FDA now, paving the way for GMO acceptance? http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_27143.cfm(Five Ways the FDA Has Failed Consumers on Genetically Engineered Foods)

If something won't pass approval, no problem. Just hire someone to approve it. Isn't that what happened in the past with Aspartame? Could it be happening now with drugs, food, or vaccines?

The FDA has been compromised. I don't trust them anymore.

Also, have you ever disagreed with a consensus?

"Medical propaganda ops are, in the long run, the most dangerous. They appear to be neutral. They wave no political banners. They claim to be science. For these reasons, they can accomplish the goals of overt fascism without arousing suspicion.” — Jon Rappoport

However, the level of scrutiny of the work on vaccines really has no parallel in medicine. Hopefully, the strict scrutiny for vaccines stays that way, or if anything, becomes more efficient!!

This is not the way I see it at all.

1.There has never been one trial done with a true control group. I am sorry, getting Vax A and comparing it to someone getting Vax B doesn't count for a control group and is found in NO OTHER field of medicine.

2. There has never been a long term, heck a short term study done to compare the health (total) of un-vaxed to a vaxed group. I would like it to be more than 10 years.

3. No studies have ever tracked negative effects that occur over the long term, reactions that occur days, weeks or years later are almost never attributed to the vaccine. David Kessler (who was the head of the FDA for most of the 90's) Admits that since post-marketing surveillance is supposed to track any negative reactions from the millions of people taking the newly released vaccine: However, not only is the adverse reporting system entirely voluntary, 90 to 99 percent of all adverse reactions are never reported. HOW are we ever to know the real number.

4. Vaccine manufacturer's us the LLMDA, but refuse to release the information of what is really in their vaxes. . If vaccines are so safe as the proponents claim, there should be no objecting to implementing and analyzing information gleaned from these advances in meta-genomics and high through-put sequencing: and made public knowledge.

5. The VRBPAC government abdicated all control and oversight of vaccine substrates to the pharmaceutical manufacturers in an apparent attempt to side step liability for any future contaminants that might travel within vaccines.All claimants in the Vaccine courts are denied access to such knowledge and information.

6. All vax trials are done by the very same people who's financial interest is in getting a vax approved.

7. Vaxes are approved by people sitting on the boards or have major finacial ties to the company trying to get Vax A through. That is what a conflict of interest is. EX: A Merck board member will design and patented a vax and then sit on the trial of Judges passing that same vax while holding the majority of shares to said vax.

Lets say I am wrong and vaccines are the most wonderful thing in the world normally....ok then:

My biggest ETHICAL questions stems back once again to Doctors, Vax Manufacturer's, and everyone in between CAN NOT be held liable or accountable at all once they are out there.

Doctors could tell you This vax will turn you into a unicorn or knowingly give a vax that they have seen kill every single child administered to (obviously that would make them nuts) and still give it out without telling the parent this bit of important info.... but still even if proven that they did it knowingly and on purpose.... NOTHING could happen to them. It would take an act of congress to punish them or hold them accountable.

NO other area in medicine does this.

And the Pharm company... if they "accidentally" let loose a deadly form of a vax on accident.... oh well, just an accident. They get to show how they have fixed the problem, but will NEVER be held liable ever. Your kid was killed by that accident, nope.... so sorry, nothing will happen for you. Good luck even getting compensated.

Please tell me where on earth in medicine, in science this is allowed to happen? Ethically speaking, name me ONE time in all of history that people and governments with absolute power, no law to say they have to tell you any info and are allowed to lie to you and all avenues to hold them accountable or liable for any of their products or interventions are taken away: has turned out well?

Did you know:

As presently interpreted by the Supreme Court, claimants are barred from challenging the relative safety of one vaccine, compared to the safety of another vaccine, in suits against vaccine manufacturers. (Even though this is how the vaccine is approved in the first place) The definition of “safety” of a vaccine depends on the HHS Secretary’s discretionary decision to not clinically investigate reactions to any given vaccine. The Secretary routinely chooses to not investigate the safety of vaccines where adverse reactions are reported and this discretionary decision may not be challenged under the FT CA.

What about other countries? If the wonderful WHO comes in and vaxes poor, malnourished kids in Africa and they have reactions to it, there is no hope. No consequences, no voice and no one cares. They will just keep on vaxing away knowing that there is no accountability at all to anyone no matter what happens to them. Wow, that is soooooo re-assuring.

Sorry but in my book the "Ethics" Surrounding the entire Vaccination policy around the world stinks.

S

DS-13

DD-8

DD-2

"Those who are afraid retreat.
Those who are brave grow greater.
Never fear, always grow."

Sun Tzu

S

DS-14

DS-14

DD-9

DD-3

"Those who are afraid retreat.Those who are brave grow greater.Never fear, always grow."

Did you ever read my post about Rumsfeld, Aspartame, and the FDA? How he hand-picked the head of the FDA, who immediately approved aspartame--although the researchers at the FDA had failed its approval for years before? Or how Monsanto's Michael Taylor is the current Deputy Commissioner of the FDA now, paving the way for GMO acceptance? http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_27143.cfm(Five Ways the FDA Has Failed Consumers on Genetically Engineered Foods)

If something won't pass approval, no problem. Just hire someone to approve it. Isn't that what happened in the past with Aspartame? Could it be happening now with drugs, food, or vaccines?

The FDA has been compromised. I don't trust them anymore.

Also, have you ever disagreed with a consensus?

As stated in post 64, most vaccines do not make it through (see link). And again, approval of vaccines is much more strict that any other product considered by the FDA. Finally, FDA is surely not perfect, but is in the science environment? Have I ever disagreed with the consensus? Yes, I do basic research for a living. Sometimes through research your work leads to conclusions that defy 'current consensus'. It's up to my colleagues to determine whether they agree. However, even when I have a hypothesis that defies the consensus, I don't simply conclude that the consensus is wrong, I look at the problem carefully, and look for evidence that logically leads to a conclusion against the consensus. Sometimes that's the end result of a study, sometimes it's not.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ssun5

However, the level of scrutiny of the work on vaccines really has no parallel in medicine. Hopefully, the strict scrutiny for vaccines stays that way, or if anything, becomes more efficient!!

This is not the way I see it at all.

1.There has never been one trial done with a true control group. I am sorry, getting Vax A and comparing it to someone getting Vax B doesn't count for a control group and is found in NO OTHER field of medicine.

2. There has never been a long term, heck a short term study done to compare the health (total) of un-vaxed to a vaxed group. I would like it to be more than 10 years.

3. No studies have ever tracked negative effects that occur over the long term, reactions that occur days, weeks or years later are almost never attributed to the vaccine. David Kessler (who was the head of the FDA for most of the 90's) Admits that since post-marketing surveillance is supposed to track any negative reactions from the millions of people taking the newly released vaccine: However, not only is the adverse reporting system entirely voluntary, 90 to 99 percent of all adverse reactions are never reported. HOW are we ever to know the real number.

4. Vaccine manufacturer's us the LLMDA, but refuse to release the information of what is really in their vaxes. . If vaccines are so safe as the proponents claim, there should be no objecting to implementing and analyzing information gleaned from these advances in meta-genomics and high through-put sequencing: and made public knowledge.

5. The VRBPAC government abdicated all control and oversight of vaccine substrates to the pharmaceutical manufacturers in an apparent attempt to side step liability for any future contaminants that might travel within vaccines.All claimants in the Vaccine courts are denied access to such knowledge and information.

6. All vax trials are done by the very same people who's financial interest is in getting a vax approved.

7. Vaxes are approved by people sitting on the boards or have major finacial ties to the company trying to get Vax A through. That is what a conflict of interest is. EX: A Merck board member will design and patented a vax and then sit on the trial of Judges passing that same vax while holding the majority of shares to said vax.

"[Vaccines] undergo several stages of clinical testing, a process that from initial discovery to a licensed vaccine can last as long as 15-20 years. The vast majority of vaccine candidates are rejected during this process."

"the general sequence is as follows. Phase I trials are small, involving as few as10-20 volunteers."

"Phase II trials are larger, randomized, and controlled to collect additional information on safety and potential efficacy. They involve several hundred participants"

"[Phase III] trials involve thousands of volunteers and last several years. A control group is utilized so that the side effect profile can be identified with clarity."

The procedure stated on this website does not even describe the very first stage of the process, basic research (preclinical research). Through basic research scientists develop the theories of the behavior of the diseases which lead to the development of potential vaccines. This first stage is mostly funded through federal grants. http://www.historyofvaccines.org/content/articles/careers-vaccine-research

kathymuggle - I find it ironic that you propose parents don't follow blindly vaccination policy (which is certainly good advice by the way), yet propose parents follow blindly MDC post policies. The website quotation addressed the vaccine approval procedure and was crucial for the current discussion. Furthermore it informs parents about vaccine approval procedures. Why would MDC be against that? Nevertheless, do you have a link were the 100 word rule is referenced?

Kathy is correct about the quote rule but it isn't really MDC's rule, it's a copyright violation to quote more without permission from the author of the quote. Not really a good point to attack her on - she was potentially preventing you from getting in trouble for violating the UA (which is where the quote limit rule can be found).

A link directing readers to a discussion or article instead of the actual content itself.
100 words or less from an article as long as those 100 words are not a substantial part of the piece. If you are quoting from a short work such as a poem or a short article, 100 words may not be an acceptable fair use allowance. You should restrict yourself to a minimal quote from the piece. Anything more requires permission to print/reproduce in written form by the copyright holder and placed within your post.
Images or content that you have personally created, paid the the rights to publish or have express written permission from the copyright holder.

kathymuggle - I am failing to understand why you propose parents don't follow blindly vaccination policy (which is certainly good advice by the way), yet propose parents follow blindly MDC post policies. The website quotation addressed the vaccine approval procedure and was crucial for the current discussion. Furthermore it informs parents about vaccine approval procedures. Why would MDC be against that? Nevertheless, do you have a link were the 100 word rule is referenced?

Sigh. Never mind Bakunin. I was trying to be kind in pointing out a minor issue rather than flagging it- but if you are going to make a fuss over things, I will simply flag things in the future and a mod can come along and deal with it.

There is a battle of two wolves inside us. One is good and the other is evil. The wolf that wins is the one you feed.

Book and herb loving mama to 1 preteen and 2 teens (when did that happen?). We travel, go to school, homeschool, live rurally, eat our veggies, spend too much time...

Your understanding of how the development of a vaccine is completely misguided.

No, It is not my understanding that is misguided. you need to dig further than a ra ra group spreading misinformation about how it works. They leave out KEY facts into how they are developed.

1. I don't care if the trial last 10 years plus when their is NEVER EVER a control group. There is never a non vax group being looked at... only VAX A being tested against another vax (or a vax that is empty of the antigens but still has every other component of vax A) This is standard practice and you should understand the reason this is such a big deal. This isn't a true long term study. A control group is always necessary.

2. No one who has any issues whatsoever are allowed in the group being tested. Another words, only if you are already one of the healthiest people out there will they allow you to be in a trial. YET, they then will tell every person on the planet (who might not react like the extremely healthy people) to all get the same amount, same size, same timing with no regard to this important issue.

Also, it isn't ONLY how vaccine become licensed.

Ethics should be honestly looking at what happens to its people (the consumers) once it is licensed and the rules that follow. Being told Vaccines are the only thing that seem to be keeping us from being wiped off the face of the world :

that government's use their power and force to make them as mandatory as possible by trying to remove everyone's choice,

are not required to give you any information or can lie about all of it

have no real reporting agency (see quote from FDA commissioner) to even have the slightest clue on real reaction rates to help keep plausible deniablity and

then make sure that everyone involved in the entire process are totally not liable/accountable in any way to those same people for any problems that occur, purposeful or by accident.... isn't ethical.

S

DS-13

DD-8

DD-2

"Those who are afraid retreat.
Those who are brave grow greater.
Never fear, always grow."

Sun Tzu

S

DS-14

DS-14

DD-9

DD-3

"Those who are afraid retreat.Those who are brave grow greater.Never fear, always grow."

I'm still surprised that health care providers aren't giving information out to parents! Why woudn't they? Maybe Colorado is a little more progressive than other parts of the country. I guess I did know about the lack of liability. I remember being given a 2-page paper on a government immunization injury hotline and all of the steps you could take after adverse reactions from a vaccine. It's been a while since my kids have had any shots. I guess, after having open and frank conversations with my kids' doctors, I've had no problems picking and choosing vaccines and vaccination times that are appropriate for my family. I'm not a fan of the 'all or nothing' attitudes regarding vaccines and health care. I really hope the health care community leans towards helping families make good choices for all medical care available.

I'm still surprised that health care providers aren't giving information out to parents! Why woudn't they? Maybe Colorado is a little more progressive than other parts of the country. I guess I did know about the lack of liability. I remember being given a 2-page paper on a government immunization injury hotline and all of the steps you could take after adverse reactions from a vaccine. It's been a while since my kids have had any shots. I guess, after having open and frank conversations with my kids' doctors, I've had no problems picking and choosing vaccines and vaccination times that are appropriate for my family. I'm not a fan of the 'all or nothing' attitudes regarding vaccines and health care. I really hope the health care community leans towards helping families make good choices for all medical care available.

I don't know where you are in CO, but I have found them to be more progressive regarding vaccines. My (unvaxed) kids go to school in Boulder, and the school is very open about exemptions. I have never had a problem with drs about not vaxing, although I choose practitioners that will respect my wishes.

t

"There are only two mistakes you can make in the search for the Truth. Not starting, and not going all the way." ~ Mark Passio

I'm still surprised that health care providers aren't giving information out to parents! Why woudn't they? Maybe Colorado is a little more progressive than other parts of the country. I guess I did know about the lack of liability. I remember being given a 2-page paper on a government immunization injury hotline and all of the steps you could take after adverse reactions from a vaccine. It's been a while since my kids have had any shots. I guess, after having open and frank conversations with my kids' doctors, I've had no problems picking and choosing vaccines and vaccination times that are appropriate for my family. I'm not a fan of the 'all or nothing' attitudes regarding vaccines and health care. I really hope the health care community leans towards helping families make good choices for all medical care available.

I'm certainly NOT in a progressive area! And I can tell you most "professionals" (because MD's do give the vaccines around here) are very clueless - ask a direct question and they blank out, they have no idea what ingredients are even in vaccines and most line up and take what ever they are told to get themselves, so they have no understanding and no mandate thus no info is given - as it's been said time and again, you don't see the packaging,you don't see the inserts and those doing the vaccine can't answer your questions

bottom line for me, no mandate to know this information means no mandate for parents to really be informed - since this is a state to state issue, if you live in an area (like mine) where most people have lived in neighboring states and move often, this just adds to it, not to mention what is "required" in each state for school is totally different as well, that means not a good mix all around-IMO

pro-transparency advocate

&

PROUD member of the .3% club!

Want to join? Just ask me!

"You know, in my day we used to sit on our ass smoking Parliaments for nine months.

KS Laura you are the first person I ever hear from that was given such information. It didn't happen in all three states I have lived in. If it wasn't for my diligent asking I wouldn't even have gotten a VIS in one state (close to you!). And on the Air Force base you get nothing. Nothing. If you ask for the brand name or papers, they yell at you for not being a good lil' mommy who follows orders. How dare you ask! They even told an aquaintance her husband will be discharged from the Air Force dishonorably if she refuses vaccines on schedule. Another thing that happened there was a service member went to Walgreens and paid for the injected flu shot over the military offered Flumist. He didn't want the mist for his newborn at home (shedding risk). So he paid himself, had the correct papers etc (fully legit) - the doctor on the base went ballistic and tried to force him to take Flumist on the same day he had the injected one at the drugstore. Luckily the guy stood up for himself and demanded to speak to the doctor in charge - who rectified the situation and confirmed he had done everything correctly and no double flu shots in one day. One wonders how those people even acquired their medical license - sadly from my experience military docs are from the bottom of the class enjoying the free ride.

Mamaofthree, wow that's awful. I'm so glad our new town is "crunchy" and we have a pediatrician who believes belittling parents is not a good idea and that parents are thinking, intelligent and can make a decision of their own.

Your understanding of how the development of a vaccine is completely misguided.

No, It is not my understanding that is misguided. you need to dig further than a ra ra group spreading misinformation about how it works. They leave out KEY facts into how they are developed.

1. I don't care if the trial last 10 years plus when their is NEVER EVER a control group. There is never a non vax group being looked at... only VAX A being tested against another vax (or a vax that is empty of the antigens but still has every other component of vax A) This is standard practice and you should understand the reason this is such a big deal. This isn't a true long term study. A control group is always necessary.

2. No one who has any issues whatsoever are allowed in the group being tested. Another words, only if you are already one of the healthiest people out there will they allow you to be in a trial. YET, they then will tell every person on the planet (who might not react like the extremely healthy people) to all get the same amount, same size, same timing with no regard to this important issue.

Also, it isn't ONLY how vaccine become licensed.

Ethics should be honestly looking at what happens to its people (the consumers) once it is licensed and the rules that follow. Being told Vaccines are the only thing that seem to be keeping us from being wiped off the face of the world :

that government's use their power and force to make them as mandatory as possible by trying to remove everyone's choice,

are not required to give you any information or can lie about all of it

have no real reporting agency (see quote from FDA commissioner) to even have the slightest clue on real reaction rates to help keep plausible deniablity and

then make sure that everyone involved in the entire process are totally not liable/accountable in any way to those same people for any problems that occur, purposeful or by accident.... isn't ethical.

S

DS-13

DD-8

DD-2

"Those who are afraid retreat.
Those who are brave grow greater.
Never fear, always grow."

Sun Tzu

I'm afraid you have already convinced yourself that the procedure is totally corrupt. Although I don't conduct research on vaccines (other than online for my kid) I do know through colleagues how the process works. I noticed you haven't done your research. Control groups are used to determine the effectiveness of vaccines. They might do some screening of participants sure. This should come as no shock, scientists can often determine right of the bat some people the vaccine may not be appropriate for (allergic reactions, etc.). Here's an example of the use of control groups for a diphtheria vaccine http://www.livinggreenwithbaby.com/parents-guide-to-children-vaccinations/

(mind you, this is a website about green living). You can find many other examples online. Once the vaccines is proven to be effective through randomized trials and the vaccine is approved for general use, observational studies follow to double check effectiveness and adverse events. Now, after the vaccine is implemented for general use, randomized trials to test the vaccine are not conducted. Why? It would be unethical. The vaccine has already been shown to work before approval!! So, it would be inappropriate to give some children the vaccine and others a placebo to check for adverse events (that would mean intentionally exposing the unvaccinated children to risk). By the way, this is general policy, around the world, not just the U.S. To check for adverse events, the best one can do, is perform observational studies.

Kathy is correct about the quote rule but it isn't really MDC's rule, it's a copyright violation to quote more without permission from the author of the quote. Not really a good point to attack her on - she was potentially preventing you from getting in trouble for violating the UA (which is where the quote limit rule can be found).

No, not really. Yes, MDC has the right to set whatever rules it wants and could make a rule that we could only copy stuff where the original source was in comic sans and we would have to either follow it or go someplace else, and that is not at all a good comparison to blindly following vaccine policy or whatever.

However, in the case of the 100 word thing, it pretty much is just MDC's rule. The 100 words is completely arbitrary. It comes from the idea that there is a difference in fair use term between quoting a small bit of something and quoting the entire work or a large portion of it. There is nothing magical about 100 words though. Quoting 100 words from a very short 200 word article could be ruled a copyright violation as it is a substantive amount of the original while quoting 3000 word out out of a huge book of over a half million words could be just fine. Also, length is not the only thing that matters, the context and the purpose in copying it also matter.

I think the MDC 100 word thing is both silly and annoying as there are many case here where it seems just fine to use much larger quotes. However, it is a complex subject, and it can often be difficult to tell if something is fair use or not, so I can see why they would want to make an arbitrary but very simple yes/no rule on it with a number so low that no sane copyright holder is going to care enough to complain.

Nevermind. Ssun5, thanks for taking the time to point out the flaws in vaccine production and licensing :)

This is an important topic. I think Ssun5 should feel free to continue the discussion (so far this sounds like an acceptable debate to me) Also I would like to know if Ssun5 can provide the sources of her information so I can cross check with my references.

Just pointing out the illogics here about "not ethical to have a control group (non vax group bc it would be risking them for infectious diseases)
That means there is already a formed conclusion that vaccines are safe. That is not a valid scientific method.
I was thinking they can recruit non vax control groups by having peds ask non vax parents to participate. However I do realize the probability of that event occurring is at par with pigs flying.

I'm afraid you have already convinced yourself that the procedure is totally corrupt. Although I don't conduct research on vaccines (other than online for my kid) I do know through colleagues how the process works. I noticed you haven't done your research. Control groups are used to determine the effectiveness of vaccines. They might do some screening of participants sure. This should come as no shock, scientists can often determine right of the bat some people the vaccine may not be appropriate for (allergic reactions, etc.). Here's an example of the use of control groups for a diphtheria vaccine http://www.livinggreenwithbaby.com/parents-guide-to-children-vaccinations/
(mind you, this is a website about green living). You can find many other examples online. Once the vaccines is proven to be effective through randomized trials and the vaccine is approved for general use, observational studies follow to double check effectiveness and adverse events. Now, after the vaccine is implemented for general use, randomized trials to test the vaccine are not conducted. Why? It would be unethical. The vaccine has already been shown to work before approval!! So, it would be inappropriate to give some children the vaccine and others a placebo to check for adverse events (that would mean intentionally exposing the unvaccinated children to risk). By the way, this is general policy, around the world, not just the U.S. To check for adverse events, the best one can do, is perform observational studies.

The vaccine may have "already been shown to work before approval," (though it's debatable how much has been shown when the test subjects were cherry-picked for positive response and the industry has a strong record of data-tweaking), but it has not been shown to be safe enough.

To test for safety issues against another vaccine that may have safety issues of its own clearly opens the door to fraud. And Merck has been accused of fraud by its own virologists.

It's ridiculous to say that giving test subjects a true placebo intentionally subjects them to risk, when you are intentionally subjecting them to risk anyway, knowing that some children who receive the vaccine may die or be severely injured from the vaccine. But I don't see the vaccine companies admitting this anywhere in that specific argument.

Vaccine company: "Our new vaccine is safe, because we tested it against a placebo, and the number of deaths during the testing phase was actually LOWER than the number of deaths with the placebo! See! We proved it's safe!"

Person with a brain: "Wow, that's a lot of deaths reported with the placebo! What was IN that placebo? Oh, wait...it wasn't a true placebo. There was an adjuvant and preservative in that vaccine. And antigens, too, just different antigens than the new vaccine. Hey, maybe the antigens aren't the problem here? Maybe it's the adjuvants and preservative that are causing the deaths, or at least contributing to scenarios that put the patient at risk for death..."

Vaccine company: "NO. The adjuvants are SAFE. The preservative is SAFE. The reported reactions weren't actually PROVED to be the cause of death, or even necessarily caused by the vaccine, so we will assume that they were just a coincidence. VACCINES ARE SAFE."

Person with a brain: "But how do you know that the adjuvants and preservative are safe?"

Vaccine company: "We--the company who profits from them--have set up our own studies, and directed them, and interpreted the results, and come to our own conclusions, and paid people to ghost-write the studies with our own conclusions, and paid other people to market the studies, and write about them in the media."

Person with a brain: "But...that's called "conflict of interest," and isn't even allowed in other businesses."

Vaccine company: "Do you know what we'll do if we are forced to play by the rules? We'll stop making all our products, and THEN YOU'LL BE SORRY! So you'd better let us make up our own rules, or ________ (insert fear-mongering threat here)!!"

It's part of an article that implies that Jenny McCarthy and Andrew Wakefield are among the strongest reasons why parents question the safety of vaccines, and it implies that current CDC-reported autism rates are for children never received thimerosal-preserved vaccines.

Both points were hotly debated with you here on your survey thread. Remember your survey thread? "Answers will be useful for a forthcoming objective article on the topic."

Whaddya know? The article you linked seems to include a survey exactly like yours!!

What a coincidence.

And look! There is a mention of the results of the survey! "The results imply that although most parents think that, in general, vaccinating children is mostly beneficial; slightly less than half think that vaccinating children is mostly harmful, or they’re not sure."

Wow. 50.57% thought that vaccination does more good than harm. Almost exactly half. And the author tweaked that into "MOST parents" and "MOSTLY beneficial." Way to push a message, there.

The author didn't exactly mention that there were quite a few parents here who refused to participate, as well as some who stated clearly that they didn't participate because it looked like the person collecting the info had already made up his mind about those who question vaccines.

And, gee, I distinctly remember some of us pointing out that severe adverse effects have historically gone unrecognized and unreported, and that therefore we don't have adequate data on the actual rate of those adverse effects. But we are told in this article that falling TV sets are a greater risk! Funny, I don't see any mention that healthy, well-nourished people have a greater chance of being injured from a falling TV set than from dying from the flu.

And severe allergic reaction is listed as the worst possible vaccine-induced side effect, even though seizure-induced brain damage and death, as well as Guillaine-Barre syndrome and lupus (both of which can be fatal) have been known to be caused by vaccines--and those are not considered to be an allergic reaction.

Wow.

I guess we can cross "Living Green With Baby" off the list of websites that look at tough issues with honesty and objectivity.

And severe allergic reaction is listed as the worst possible vaccine-induced side effect, even though seizure-induced brain damage and death, as well as Guillaine-Barre syndrome and lupus (both of which can be fatal) have been known to be caused by vaccines--and those are not considered to be an allergic reaction.

Wow.

I am not aware of any scientific evidence showing that vaccines cause lupus. I'm pretty sure you will not be able to provide the scientific evidence? Or would you?

Parents can judge for themselves the accuracy of the provided green website post and poll results. I like the last page of the post when it asks "whether vaccines should be considered green?"

As far as the procedure of vaccine approval, starting from the discovery change, the vaccine ethics website is quite accurate in its description. These first few stages are especially brutal. I've provided several references on the topic, can you please to the same with your claims. That would greatly enhance the benefit of the debate.